[EdHominem]

> I notice you didn't comment on any of the videos I linked.

They didn't address the point in question. I never denied that politicians follow the crowd.

In this case they're guilty of leading the crowd first.

> I do strongly believe in the effectiveness of discourse, regardless of how much the participants have disagreed, leveled accusations, or made war in the preceding period.

There's a ton of value for the dishonest person. Literally any settling you do is payout for them. But is there any value in it for the honest person?

You're still presenting this as if the Austin politicians actually think background checks will stop rape, or that there's a rape problem to begin with.

> Leading figures in opposing countries can and do meet to find common objectives, even during or immediately after wartime.

Sure, but there they've presumably got real metrics (people dying). And they can't just walk away.

> A PR squabble over taxi regulations is nothing compared to making up after a world war.

Right, this squabble is literally over a lie to make people buy unneeded services. It's nothing like a real issue such as an armistice.

> And Fasten is walking in to work with the scammers, which may make U/L irrelevant in 6 months to a year.

Not to the residents who are denied the better service, and who are forced to pay more for worthless measures.

> Fasten is ahead of Uber in Austin because it is putting faith in building a relationship with Austin first. Later, with the good relationship in place, Fasten can still work on lifting the fingerprint requirement.

You don't honestly believe that. A requirement to pay for city services is never going to go away. Especially because it wasn't enacted with metrics in mind so there's no way to prove that it's not helping anything.

Meanwhile, Austin residents suffer stupid, demeaning, and expensive requirements for them to get work.

> No, I think in that case you can acknowledge that this is what's happening and still seek some common objective. If the politician truly is better than you at pulling the wool over the public's eyes, welcome to the real world, where you have to deal with people you don't like.

That they left shows that you don't have to. Now the only people who are stuck dealing with the politicians are the residents.

> Scorched earth politics are no fun.

Except when you're a politician and have nothing to lose. Then they're par for the course. Their favorite super-weapon, the ban-hammer.

But that's a total mischaracterization on your part. Uber and Lyft simply walked away from a crazy market. You're trying to make it seem like they burned the town down on their way out.

> There is a saying, only a sith deals in absolutes.

Ahh yes, because only Hitler doesn't like being railroaded. Astute political observation.

[studentrob]

> There's a ton of value for the dishonest person. Literally any settling you do is payout for them. But is there any value in it for the honest person?

By using the words honest and dishonest you're saying you believe in an objective morality. I already mentioned I don't believe in that.

The politician could be using duplicitous tactics. In a negotiation, it doesn't matter. You can always find somewhere to agree, even if it's just about the simple fact that Austin needs ride sharing. U/L could start over with an open mind, some blank slates, and see how much they can agree to with the city. Maybe invite a 3rd party negotiator. Ultimately, U/L may not agree with the city. At the very least, they'd have made their positions a bit more clear.

> You're still presenting this as if the Austin politicians actually think background checks will stop rape, or that there's a rape problem to begin with.

I do think successful politicians need to be as hard on security as can reasonably be expected on issues like this. It only takes one incident to destroy his or her political career. For example, let's say there's a hole in the road and I tell the city. Then, they don't fix it in a reasonable amount of time. Then, someone gets into an accident. The city is liable. In the case of U/L fingerprint checks, the politician won't be held liable for failure to clamp down on security in a court of law. However, he may be held liable in the court of public opinion. All it takes is one crime committed by a person who would've been filtered by the fingerprint background checks, but wasn't filtered by the private checks.

I'm not sure you appreciate how much people value their security, and how much Americans are willing to press for getting the best care possible. Once someone suggests that fingerprints are the best way to manage security going forward, it's difficult to backtrack and convince the public that's not necessary. Doing so is a risk for the politician, and since people don't like flip flops, once he or she speaks out in support of fingerprint checks, they'd also have difficulty going back on it, so it's full steam ahead until new information comes in.

Negotiation with U/L might help the city official find their way back towards a way to lead people to feel that fingerprint checks aren't necessary. The ball is in U/L's court and it isn't the mayor's job to convince people that he or she was wrong. That's U/L's job, and U/L can get there by making the mayor look good. Just like making your boss look good in the office, the same can be said of businesses and city officials. If U/L isn't willing to go there, it seems Fasten is.

We haven't talked about Fasten much. What do you expect will happen there? Fasten will be unprofitable? Or Austin will become upset with itself before other ride-sharing apps can fill the void left by U/L?

> Sure, but there they've presumably got real metrics (people dying). And they can't just walk away.

China walked away for ~20 years from 1949 to the 1970s. They had pulled back their diplomats from overseas and nobody was allowed in or out. 1 billion people were locked in. A lot of people died. Their heads of state didn't approach anyone. The US approached them, very carefully, because although they didn't want to completely turn their backs on Taiwan, they did want to have economic relations with China. China wanted to have relations with the US too. Neither party was certain where they could find common ground. Through a series of meetings, they found a way to work together, despite China being communist and America being anti-communist. I don't know of any more diametrically opposed ideologies working together than those two, and if they can do it, anyone can.

> Not to the residents who are denied the better service, and who are forced to pay more for worthless measures.

Something is better than nothing, no? The vote happened, and now Austin has Fasten instead of U/L. U/L doesn't seem like an option to riders at the moment.

> A requirement to pay for city services is never going to go away

Maybe you're right. Maybe Fasten disappears and is unsustainable. My guess is, if they were in dire straits, the city would work with them to lower costs, lest the city appear to be pushing away all ride sharing service providers. I'd guess that is 6 months or a year down the road, if ever. Austin could elect a mayor who thinks differently, and, by that time Fasten or someone else may be well established.

Maybe U/L weighed all the risks and decided Austin isn't worth it. But if Fasten is able to sustain for a year under the fingerprint system, I think that gives other cities leverage to push for the same. In the public's eyes it's about security and that's all that counts. Leaving the negotiating table in Austin could backfire on U/L. If I were them I'd rather be involved in setting policy with which the public agrees, and being a part of that discussion rather than being viewed as opposed to the public. Politicians are elected the same way products are sold. It's all about perception. The materials in different Apple watch bands all cost the same. Companies sell products for what people are willing to pay, etc etc.

> But that's a total mischaracterization on your part. Uber and Lyft simply walked away from a crazy market. You're trying to make it seem like they burned the town down on their way out.

I don't mean to say that. I mean to say they have many options in front of them. Stay away, come back, talk more in the media, approach city officials directly and try to build a relationship (legally! ;-) ), or any number of other things. They have many options.

[EdHominem]

> By using the words honest and dishonest you're saying you believe in an objective morality. I already mentioned I don't believe in that.

I'm referring to facts, which you also said you don't believe in.

I agree that there is subjectivity in everything - is it an elephant, or a tree, etc.. But if you think tree and say tiger, you're lying.

> The politician could be using duplicitous tactics. In a negotiation, it doesn't matter.

Uh, yes it does. An upfront person should never negotiate with someone they feel is duplicitous. They'll take every olive branch from and offer you nothing real in return.

> You can always find somewhere to agree

Not with someone playing a game, you won't. They won't give you the time of day unless they can manipulate it.

> even if it's just about the simple fact that Austin needs ride sharing.

Obviously it doesn't. And even if it did, it's not Uber or Lyft's job to provide it if it's not also in their best interests.

> U/L could start over with an open mind, some blank slates, and see how much they can agree to with the city.

They don't at all. There's no middle-ground in the fundamental issues at all.

There's probably a low enough price where it wouldn't be worth arguing, but there's a world full of other cities so that price is pretty low.

> At the very least, they'd have made their positions a bit more clear.

Do you think the problem is that they haven't been understood?

> We haven't talked about Fasten much.

Right, it's almost irrelevant. The issue is the dishonest city driving out businesses that won't pay graft.

> What do you expect will happen there? Fasten will be unprofitable?

Because of this interference? No. They'll pass the costs on to the consumers. Consumers will be paying for worthless security measures designed to mitigate imaginary risks.

Also if they're the consolation prize for having chased Uber away, the city will give them concession after concession to make it appear that they made a good choice.

> But if Fasten is able to sustain for a year under the fingerprint system, I think that gives other cities leverage to push for the same.

And it'll still be worthless when others did it, but yes I imagine they'd be emboldened to try. There's literally no downside for the politicians to try to take everything they can.

That's like saying that if I burned down your factory and got away with it that other business owners would become wary and probably pay protection money. True, but horrid.

> If I were them I'd rather be involved in setting policy with which the public agrees, and being a part of that discussion rather than being viewed as opposed to the public.

Your only carrot is less stick. Talk to us now or talk to us when after a year of being trashed in the media.

It would be a scary threat except that this is the only reception they get.

> Politicians are elected the same way products are sold.

No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

The city is spending taxpayer dollars to lie to the people.

> approach city officials directly and try to build a relationship

Yeah, approach the city officials and, cough cough, build a relationship. "Mr-Mayor Stadium" would go a long way to making anything happen.

> They have many options.

Right, unlike the people of Austin. The ones who paid to be lied to, and paid to be denied market rate service, and (if you believe the rape-epidemic stories) paid to be stuck with the rape-mobiles we call taxis.

[studentrob]

> Do you think the problem is that they haven't been understood?

That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor.

> Also if they're the consolation prize for having chased Uber away, the city will give them concession after concession to make it appear that they made a good choice.

You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

> That's like saying that if I burned down your factory and got away with it that other business owners would become wary and probably pay protection money. True, but horrid.

Yes. I don't know how you perceive the world. In my view, it's mostly good.

> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

There was a vote..

> The city is spending taxpayer dollars to lie to the people.

People make up their own minds. Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information. At the end of the day, people decide for themselves. In America we're lucky to have the freedom to seek out other news sources. As buried as the other side of the story may be, it's better than only being allowed to read one side.

> Yeah, approach the city officials and, cough cough, build a relationship. "Mr-Mayor Stadium" would go a long way to making anything happen.

That's not what I meant. I meant, any negotiation first requires treating the other person like a person. You're a person, I'm a person, we can shake hands and even agree to disagree without even raising voices. We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts, are what drive votes. People interpret facts depending on the context. That's something on which we can agree.

> Right, unlike the people of Austin. The ones who paid to be lied to, and paid to be denied market rate service, and (if you believe the rape-epidemic stories) paid to be stuck with the rape-mobiles we call taxis.

They had a vote. Some voted for U/L, some voted against it. Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way. Politicians told voters they're intelligent enough to vote, and U/L implies that they're not. Who do you think wins that vote, even before it starts, regardless of the facts? Beginning with the intent to offend people, or thinking that you're smarter than they are, wins zero votes.

Again thanks for the discussion! I'm continuing because you seem cool with it. I'm also fine if you want to drop it, as it's been quite a number of responses and I understand if it is getting tiresome. I won't consider it a forfeit, and I respect your opinion.

I'm surprised you had no comments about the negotiations in China in the 70s. That example may not be the best since it depends on your familiarity with history of that time & place. But if anti-communists and communists working together doesn't convince you that anything's possible, I've no idea what will.

Who do you look up to? Who do you admire?

I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is. Even if a cold medicine's ingredients are the same, people are most likely to buy the one whose package says "guaranteed cure!". That's their perception acting when interpreting facts, or, as you might put it, warping facts. Either way the perception is the driving force.

[EdHominem]

> That's a possibility. U/L didn't get their message across to the public and the public voted against them. Occam's razor.

It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people.

> You seem to be concluding that the decision made by the city is morally wrong. Many things end up this way in the world, and we manage to move forward in spite of the world's imperfections

It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.

I'm saying the decision is wrong because it's a bad strategy predicated on a mistaken risk analysis used because of lies. That's inefficient and will, almost by definition, be the consolation prize. Something designed as a negotiation with taxi companies who were asked "How much competition do you want?"

>> No, when companies advertise to me they aren't reaching into my pocket to do so.

> There was a vote..

On a heavily propagandized and scaremongered issue which make it essentially meaningless as an indicator of the people's true feelings.

> Flooding them with pro-U/L or pro-fingerprint messages is just a means of sharing information.

No, not really.

And the main issue is that they used the taxpayers own money to advertise and justify the city's side - which was actually mostly lies.

> People make up their own minds.

So no, they really don't. Not when the government itself is selling them messages of rape and terrorism.

> Voters would be offended if you told them they were too mindless to interpret the facts in the right way.

That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.

My contention is that the facts are hidden, and worse, are lies from people they should be able to trust.

You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.

> We can also find agreement without money exchanging hands. It might not be exactly what you or I had in mind at the outset of the meeting but it's something.

Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.

> You and I agree that perceptions, or context around facts

In this context (hah), context means additional facts. Yes, a bullet hole, but also IN a person.

> People interpret facts depending on the context.

And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)

> I also still think you're overlooking how Americans feel about security. They want the best there is.

No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.

If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.

> Either way the perception is the driving force.

Yes, and in this case the very experts we elect to help us reason about this are lying to us, intentionally shaping these all-important perceptions. Then they're polling us right after the 10-minute hate and using those results to drive decision by consensus.

It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.

[studentrob]

> It's vanishingly unlikely that the incumbents wouldn't win the election (get their way) when they've been propagandizing to the people.

Could be!

> It feels like you keep trying to make this something spiritual.

How's that? All I've said is people's interpretation of facts drives votes, not facts themselves. I don't see how that is spiritual. It's as mathematical as anything.

>> People make up their own minds.

> So no, they really don't.

On this, I cannot agree, unless you want to argue for determinism and against free will, in which case I'd reconsider it. You feel people are puppets. I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds.

> That's very meta-liberal of you to be offended for people who would be offended if only they knew. Especially because the insult was yours.

Eh, I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument. I'm actually neutral here, and don't favor U/L or the city. Believe it or not, I'm just arguing for what I think constitutes the most effective strategy and methods. I think the city happens to have a better bead on good strategy than U/L in some ways.

> You're the one making the implication that being fooled must be shameful.

Actually, I don't believe that. All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort.

> Concessions are as good as cash. That sidesteps the issue of why, and how there's no good reason.

Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal. I'm not privy to the financials of U/L so I really couldn't say what's reasonable. Plus as you note it's complicated since there could be a ripple effect. Again, I'm just speaking in support of tactics and strategy that I think are likely to be effective. I'm not necessarily siding with the city. I think the ripple effect could happen in either direction, and that by not discussing things with Austin, U/L are allowing that city to create their own version of a ripple. That ripply could go in a direction that U/L likes even less than one in which U/L were more directly involved. U/L could be more a part of the collective stone that's tossed into the water along with the residents and city officials. By disengaging, they lose some of their influence. If they want to come back they'd be best served working on the relationship first, however corrupt the officials are perceived to be, so long as it's legal. City officials cannot compel U/L to break the law.

I don't doubt there's shady stuff happening in Texas in regards to tech companies. The situation with patents there is horrid for many entrepeneurs. That said, it is what it is, and everyone needs to either work with the law as it is written, risk a bit of civil disobedience, campaign for some changes, or walk away from it like you say. In the case of software patents, they're tough to walk away from in the US. Walking away from the US is difficult from an investor perspective. I'd applaud anyone who does so to diversify their efforts. Personally, I'm in Taiwan. I think most people agree that the US is about as good as it gets.

> And in this context, you're referring to emotional context, and what these people are doing isn't valid reasoning. They're reacting differently to the same stimuli because of unrelated historical events (the propaganda.)

Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable? What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names? I believe that's considered bad form on HN. Feel free to let the crap fly if you prefer. I'm not offended by any of it. You can call me spiritual, hand wavy, factless, ignorant, or whatever suits you. Names would not change my feeling about how effective campaigns are run. I'll do my best to listen to arguments despite name calling. Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument.

> No, I don't. I work in a similar industry. And no they don't, they want easy choices.

> If you ask people what they want they'll say the best, and if you watch them they'll choose the cheapest, but they're happiest when an seemingly affordable option says "Guaranteed" because it frees them of the responsibility to think.

I agree with that. You've changed my mind here. That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security". Even far right republicans who want small government will spend a boat load on defense. The far-far right want a giant metaphorical wall inside which they can operate freely. In practice, for better or for worse, that doesn't happen in a democratic republic, or any other society I've seen. There are always internal regulations that some people hate and some people love.

> It's meaningless, except that it's being used to steal from all of us.

It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers they're not ideologues. It's tough. Even elected officials can't be certain of supreme court nominees. Nominees' entire lives are examined and it can still take weeks or months for officials to confirm them. I do think, on the whole, our democratic republic is better than the alternatives that exist elsewhere. What do you think?

[EdHominem]

> How's that? All I've said is people's interpretation of facts drives votes, not facts themselves. I don't see how that is spiritual. It's as mathematical as anything.

No, you keep appealing to objective morality, and/or the lack of it. Facts are facts. They're what doesn't go away when you close your eyes. That's all.

It's not an appeal to an objective morality to predict that the coyote will fall when he walks off the cliff.

> On this, I cannot agree, [...] You feel people are puppets.

Oh? People pay for advertising because it doesn't work? That's news.

Ditto propaganda. It plainly works. We decry posting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion not because it's right, but because it doesn't matter if it's right for it to have a very-clear effect in driving violence against innocent people.

Being easily led is the default state and takes constant work to avoid. It's not unreasonable to predict that at any time most everyone involved in a decision is phoning it it - especially in heavily propagandized scenarios.

> I say they vote based on interpretation of facts, that propaganda can be influential, and that ultimately they make up their own minds.

Sure, without electrodes implanted, anything that happens in their head is "their own mind" by definition.

But you won't get a useful answer to anything from a group of people who've already heard a lopsided view of an issue. Not even representative of their broader opinions.

> All of us are unknowledgeable about something at one point or another. We're not born all-knowing. Applying shame for lack of knowledge or understanding is wasted effort.

And yet you've repeatedly put derogatory words in my mouth for the people of Austin, as if I must believe them to be mindless to think that they've decided wrongly.

You're dehumanizing me, as a way of combatting the dehumanization and disrespect you assume I must have for others. It's funny to watch.

> I don't really care if they're offended, I'm just saying what I think is likely to win your argument.

Oh okay.

> Do you really think this strategy will get U/L somewhere with voters? Does it help you win arguments with your partner, or in friendships when you tell them they're unreasonable?

Ahh yes, you do care.

You're moving the goalposts. The issue is that the city made the wrong decision because the elected officials spent taxpayer money to lie to the people. You suggest that now I'm failing to win the hearts of the voters.

I'm not trying to "win" with the voters. That would take propaganda and lots of money. I'm showing why their decision was wrong, and how it was manipulated, and why people spent time and money (but not their own) to make it happen.

> What if I called you unreasonable or started calling you names?

Again, an argument by appeal to offense - and offense that you've gone out of your way to create.

I'm not trying to win you over so I frankly don't care, but I haven't called you or the residents of Austin any names. All the slights are actually yours, that you're suggesting I try out. (Puppets, etc.)

> > Concessions are as good as cash.

> Okay. It sounds like winning every penny that you feel you deserve matters more to you than making a deal that's anything less than ideal.

Why don't you ask what I feel as opposed to telling me? Does that win you any arguments with friends and family? :P

No, I'm saying that being wrongly forced to concede anything is the same, ultimately, as being forced to make a cash payment. You act as if non-financial concessions wouldn't be damaging to their business, etc. "Oh, it's a non-financial concession, whatever." Like a non-financial concession to fingerprint drivers, for example.

You keep coming back to the fallacy of the middle-ground, implying that the right thing to do is seek consensus with all viewpoints, and that some amount of concessions must always be closer to correct than any starting point.

> By disengaging, they lose some of their influence.

The decision was made in the propaganda phase - a game they could play just as well from outside if they choose to. FWIW, their influence comes from providing a better service in more areas. A lack of Uber is more damning to Austin than a lack of Austin is to Uber, and Uber(/Lyft) makes their best argument for helping Austin simply by providing the best service in SF.

By disengaging they simply refuse to validate the elected officials and waste time in a rigged process.

> Respect for my intellect might win a bit more with me, as I imagine it would with most people. I would still try to look out for the reason in your argument.

Respect, respect, respect. You sound like Cartman on an authority trip. "Respect Mah Intelligence!" But you don't have any disrespect to point to; it's a demonization tactic not real advice.

You've put words in my mouth, told me what I though, and slighted the people of Austin for me. Please don't.

> That said, "easy" is pushing the button that says "spend more taxes on security".

No, 'easy' is pushing the button you've been told to push by the advertising. It's absolutely unrelated to the actual outcome picked because the point is that the easy solution is to bypass even considering the issues, let alone choosing something.

If security sold then people would have enough smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

> It's always been this way. Every tool can be used for good or evil, we just try to elect who we think are fair minded guys/gals and cross our fingers

The "it's always been this way" defense. I don't understand your need to pull that out or what you think it accomplishes.

"But throughout history we've always mugged and killed people, your Honor. I don't see how this is any worse."

It's meaningless when dealing with specifics. It doesn't matter if Nixon wasn't that unusual, he was still a crook... It doesn't matter if many cities have corrupt officials, it matters that we can point them out when it happens without hand-waving and denials.